The Rest of the Story

Jubilant Iraqis streaming to the polls on election day had much to celebrate. This election, whatever its flaws, was an open one. Iraqis could not only choose among different candidates but they could even choose not to vote, a liberty not enjoyed under Saddam Hussein’s one party state. The celebration demonstrated the sheer joy of newly exercised freedom. Coming as it did, against a backdrop of violence and terror, Iraqi joy on election day was a welcome reminder that the human spirit can never be extinguished.

In those celebrations, however, lies danger for America. The celebrations carry a warning: the United States is not welcome to stay in Iraq. Most Iraqis voting on Sunday were voting for a government to take full sovereignty and end the occupation. Soon. Juan Cole quotes leaders of the Shi’ite coalition and Interim Prime Minister’s coalition on the need for the occupation to end.

"Abdul Aziz al-Hakim claimed victory in the Sunday elections for the United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition of religious Shiite parties he leads. And this is what the winners, if they are winners, think of the US: 'No one welcomes the foreign troops in Iraq. We believe in the ability of Iraqis to run their own issues, including the security issue,' Mr Hakim said. 'Of course this issue could be brought up by the new government.'...."

"...Interim President Ghazi al-Yawir expressed hope that a substantial withdrawal of Coalition troops could be effected by the end of 2005, and this hope seems widely shared in Iraq...."

Dahr Jamail also reports on Iraqi voter expectations and notes that the American media have ignored the key issue for most voters.

"What ...[the media]...didn’t tell you was that of those who voted, whether they be 35% or even 60% of registered voters, [sic] were not voting in support of an ongoing US occupation of their country. In fact, they were voting for precisely the opposite reason. Every Iraqi I have spoken with who voted explained that they believe the National Assembly which will be formed soon will signal an end to the occupation. And they expect the call for a withdrawing of foreign forces in their country to come sooner rather than later. This causes one to view the footage of cheering, jubilant Iraqis in a different light now, doesn’t it?"

"...Now the question remains, what happens when the National Assembly is formed and over 100,000 US soldiers remain on the ground in Iraq with the Bush Administration continuing in its refusal to provide a timetable for their removal? What happens when Iraqis see that while there are already four permanent US military bases in their country, rather than beginning to disassemble them, more bases are being constructed, as they are, by Cheney’s old company Halliburton, right now?"

US policy plans on permanent military bases in Iraq. Of course, these troops will not be foreign occupiers but rather “forward assets” to ensure stability in the region. Dahr Jamail further quotes a scholar on US strategic interests in the region wherein Iraq is a key element. The scholar describes initiatives launched by the US to open Iraq’s economy to foreign investment, oversee Iraqi government decisions for an extended period, and a possible “corrupt bargain” between the US and a major Shi’ite party.

Iraq and the world had much to celebrate on January 30. And still much to fear in the days ahead.